Is terrorism worse than subjugation?

They’re both bad, and it’s highly situational to consider which one is worse.

Indeed. Yet I find that most condemnations of groups that employ terrorism are about the substance of their violence, not the legitimacy of their claims, or their goals. Whereas subjugation is more morally acceptable, and considered a legitimate tool of statecraft.

Most people would not see North Korea that way.

Yeah, but Israel and Turkey are our allies, and China is still a major trading partner. All have ethnic cleansing agendas which result in suffering and death, but since the substance of their violence isn’t as … something… as the substance of terrorist violence, it isn’t treated in the same manner.

Regarding apartheid, I think actual violent criminals (people who destroy property, attack and maim others, etc) should be locked up, not processed and turned loose.

I think it’s at least a couple things.

State and other types of systemic violence (unless it’s an actual war) aren’t really vivid events. They’re just always there in the background, so people become desensitised to it, and the violence itself becomes somewhat normalised and even given rationalisations (and often flatly denied).

States are vastly more powerful entities and can employ a lot more, and more effective propaganda. Many of their citizens will internalise and willingly spread state propaganda for free, justifying, rationalising, underplaying and outright denying the state violence.

Terrorist attacks are extremely vivid and attention grabbing events that provoke strong emotions and outrage in the way systemic state violence doesn’t, even if the victims of the latter are greater.

The media will give relatively a lot more attention to crimes of official enemies, whether state or terrorist groups. Our own state crimes, official allies, and states deemed geopolitically important or expedient, tend to be downplayed, rationalised, or treated as mere regrettable mistakes rather than immoral crimes.

“Are there legitimate targets that terrorism might be used upon? ”

There’s a heavier burden of justification, and I think it’s easier to imagine targeted assassinations being justifiable in some contexts, regardless of overall efficacy (maybe some bastard just deserves to die), while indiscriminate bombing or attacks on civilians are pretty much unjustifiable.

“Are there legitimate uses of apartheid?”

No.

Very interesting thoughts, @Kropotkin. Just to push a bit, if low-visibility state violence inflicts measurable harm upon one civilian population, is it always unjustifiable to target another civilian population with terroristic attacks, if those attacks go farther to materially liberating your people than any “legitimate” use of force ever could? The policies are both those of civilian death, and only the visibility of the style of their use of force (not the actual amounts of death, destruction, non-combatant harm etc) removes the moral high ground from the oppressed group.

@Smashley Okay. So this is basically an ethics question. This isn’t something I’m particularly certain or dogmatic about, but I do lean toward consequentialism.

So if it were the case that targeting another civilian population with terrorist attacks was the best possible strategy of materially liberating one’s own people, and consequently stopping future violence by the other state, then I think it would be justifiable—even if an uncomfortable idea.

I just think it’s not justifiable, because it actually isn’t a good strategy and is probably counter-productive and harmful.

That said, I can appreciate why some would resort to such a strategy given sufficient stressors and conditions, which is also why I don’t reproach an oppressed people for the manner of their resistance, as some subjugated and oppressed people will inevitably react with violence precisely because of the conditions imposed on them.

I can also imagine some could sincerely hold the belief that it’s a good strategy to use, and believe they’re justified in their terrorism against civilians.